Intel 9900KS = 5.0 GHz on ALL cores

[Princess Luna]

7 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Maybe this is no longer the case with newer CPUs?

It's not the case since Skylake then if it actually works on Haswell, are you sure you're locking on the single core max turbo? no BCLK?

 

I'll be honest that I went from a Core2Duo to an i7 6700 so I skipped the older Core i-series processors to know exactly the behavior on Haswell but I did face the issue on the i7 6700 where all I could do was BCLK.

[melete]

Think this hits $700 MSRP?

[ARikozuM]

The K stands for "unlocked".

The S stands for "shill". 

 

The shills have unlocked their wallets. 

[Zodiark1593]

11 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

It's not the case since Skylake then if it actually works on Haswell, are you sure you're locking on the single core max turbo? no BCLK?

 

I'll be honest that I went from a Core2Duo to an i7 6700 so I skipped the older Core i-series processors to know exactly the behavior on Haswell but I did face the issue on the i7 6700 where all I could do was BCLK.

Beyond just the specs, I'm pretty well outdated on the inner workings of anything newer than Haswell myself. When I first built the desktop and set the BIOS, I was quite surprised to find I can lock the multipliers to x37 (you can set the multiplier pretty much anywhere at or below x37, but no higher), and even more surprised to find that it actually held 3.7 GHz under a full load (Handbrake x265, Blender, AIDA64, etc). 

 

Another tidbit, Sandy Bridge (and probably Ivy) also allowed overclocking on their locked skus by up to 4x over turbo before clamping down with Haswell.*

 

*source for the last paragraph.

 

https://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/8

 

[Firewrath9]

On 5/26/2019 at 12:16 PM, TetraSky said:

and the heat output.
Wouldn't be surprised if they showcase it with a chiller, again.

Showed it with a 240mm aio.

 

data on 5ghz 9900K is unkown, however 8700k is ~83%

[PlayStation 2]

People talking about heat like the FX series and the Pentium 4s weren't spicy hot.

[Ankerson]

Just now, Dan Castellaneta said:

People talking about heat like the FX series and the Pentium 4s weren't spicy hot.

 

The P4's were HOT, still remember my LOUD as hell P4 system. 

 

Could hear it running 2 rooms over.

[Zodiark1593]

7 minutes ago, Ankerson said:

 

The P4's were HOT, still remember my LOUD as hell P4 system. 

 

Could hear it running 2 rooms over.

In all fairness, coolers have advanced quite a bit in the past decade or so.

[Ankerson]

1 minute ago, Zodiark1593 said:

In all fairness, coolers have advanced quite a bit in the past decade or so.

 

Yeah, and case fans too.

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, fasauceome said:

Intel further confusing their nomenclature. The "S" has to this point denoted a lower power variant, with lower clocks, not higher.

 

What next, an i9 9900T with 5.5GHz all cores?

They should have but “FX” in front instead. FX9900

[Taf the Ghost]

Intel will call it a 135w part. This is going to be 180w or higher under most loads.

 

This launch review is suddenly relevant again.

 

https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/page3.html

 

 

 

So, Intel is going to charge probably 599USD or more for this and you're going to need at least 100USD in cooler to even think of not throttling it under core-heavy load.

[Fasauceome]

23 minutes ago, floofer said:

They should have but “FX” in front instead. FX9900

would make sense, heat output wise

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

So they are going to screw people buying the conventional i9 9900K by taking all the binned chips and selling for a premium as i9 9900KS themselves...

 

No more silicon lottery I guess... my i9 9900K can run 5ghz all cores I just leave it at 4.7ghz because my NH-U12P SE2 is not exactly up for it.

 

I dislike this marketing behavior because now every one buying the 9900K will know they are getting a lesser silicon chip and "fastest gaming chip ever" is one marketing that makes absolutely no sense, all these processors from the i7 8700K, 8086K, 9700K and 9900K all game pretty much the same clock for clock.

 

In fact the "fastest" is still the i7 9700K if you'll be literal since most games are still a bit derp when handling HT and the lack of it as shown to always gain a little bit of extra fps in comparison.

 

@Ankerson this 9900KS won't overclock better, it will overclock what good 9900K's do, what will happen as I written is that now the newer 9900K will be worse overclockers as the binned ones will be sold at a premium.

Shades of FX9590 & 8350

[jones177]

 

2 hours ago, seoz said:

Exact situation happened to my friend who bought an i7-8700K shortly after the i7-8086K limited came out. She got quite a bad pick, couldn't run 4.8GHz stable even with a Cooler Master MasterLiquid 240. Suffice to say, she was not happy.

My i7 8700k couldn't do 4.8ghz stable either. All it could do was 4.7 on all cores. That was so disappointing that I got a i7 8086k as soon as they came out.

Now I have 2.

[GoldenLag]

Cant wait for the low powered 7 watt variant.

 

The 9900KYS.

 

Boosting to 5,2ghz with a base of 0,8ghz.

 

 

/s

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

So they are going to screw people buying the conventional i9 9900K by taking all the binned chips and selling for a premium as i9 9900KS themselves...

 

Yep,  Both companies have already been doing this for a while,  as the ability to bin chips gets faster and more accurate in the production line the more we will see this.

5 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

No more silicon lottery I guess... my i9 9900K can run 5ghz all cores I just leave it at 4.7ghz because my NH-U12P SE2 is not exactly up for it.

I have been saying for a few years now that the silicon lottery is a dying thing.   As production improves all chips will be better graded before they leave the factory.   Eventually we will get to a point where overclocking is not a thing (it almost isn't already, turbo boost is not really overclocking), you just buy the fastest chip you can afford knowing it's limits.

5 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

I dislike this marketing behavior because now every one buying the 9900K will know they are getting a lesser silicon chip and "fastest gaming chip ever" is one marketing that makes absolutely no sense, all these processors from the i7 8700K, 8086K, 9700K and 9900K all game pretty much the same clock for clock.

 

In fact the "fastest" is still the i7 9700K if you'll be literal since most games are still a bit derp when handling HT and the lack of it as shown to always gain a little bit of extra fps in comparison.

 

@Ankerson this 9900KS won't overclock better, it will overclock what good 9900K's do, what will happen as I written is that now the newer 9900K will be worse overclockers as the binned ones will be sold at a premium.

 

You'll never escape marketing. 

 

 

[Coaxialgamer]

To be honest i first though that 'S' was meant to denote multiple 9900K processors, not the actual model.

[Princess Luna]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You'll never escape marketing.

How to draw the line?

 

i9 9900K = Fastest Gaming CPU ever!...... Oh wait scratch that, i9 9990XE is now fastest gaming CPU ever!!1.... ohh wait, we binned a couple of 9900K's and renamed them 9900KS and now they are magically the fAsTes GaMinG CPU evah again!!!1

 

And here I thought nVidia going with the fastest GPU ever marketing on ever new TITAN was bad...

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

How to draw the line?

 

i9 9900K = Fastest Gaming CPU ever!...... Oh wait scratch that, i9 9990XE is now fastest gaming CPU ever!!1.... ohh wait, we binned a couple of 9900K's and renamed them 9900KS and now they are magically the fAsTes GaMinG CPU evah again!!!1

 

And here I thought nVidia going with the fastest GPU ever marketing on ever new TITAN was bad...

You can't draw lines anywhere, these companies just ignore it and say whatever they think will sell more product.

 

I don't think I've seen a single product blurb or tag line that is honestly representative of that product.

 

 

[S w a t s o n]

4 hours ago, porina said:

You can make anything look bad if you overclock it far enough. My 1700 was drawing 180W running at 4.0. MCE is basically an overvolted oveclock. Properly set it isn't that bad.

I mean we're getting into semantics here. The PL2 of the 9900k is over 200W no matter how you look at it. Yea it's kind of my point. The 9590 was an overclocked 8350.

[porina]

Wasn't the reason that Intel locked down their CPUs from overclocking was because people were buying the low end ones, and getting top end clocks too easily? There's still some headroom to be gained from the unlocked parts, but not as much as before. Intel side, 7800X 4.0 all core stock, 4.9 with custom water but borderline throttling somewhere. 5.0 just about possible with chiller. 8086k 4.3 all core, 5.1 on air without delid, 5.2 after delid. 8350k stock 4.0, would do 5.0 on air but required unsafe voltages. So roughly 20-25% possible depending on how far you push the limits.

 

Ryzen aren't any more overclocking friendly, since they already run close to their limits also. Take my 1700. Stock all core was 3.2. Low voltage OC gets me to 3.6 and would be my 24/7 OC. To get to 3.9+ I'm already at 1.4v and things are getting warm. 4.0 needed unsafe voltages and the CPU reported 180W usage in Cinebench R15. Suffice to say I didn't leave it there for long. Similarly, my 2600 is 3.9 all core stock, OC to 4.25 at best without silly voltages. So 25% max on the 1700, 9% on 2600.

 

[StealthArsenal]

Well, I'm still ditching my X299 for Ryzen 2.  This Intel overpriced cash cow is the breaking point I think now.  AMD still might now have the fastest single core performance, but who cares at this point in all honesty.  The performance is so close, it really doesn't matter. 

[xg32]

Pretty much mean they will bin the 9900k thoroughly for 5ghz, i'd stop buying the base 9900k right now if anyone's thinking about getting one, prolly gonna get all the trash bins (happened with the 8700k and 8086k). 

 

On top of that the 5ghz version will probably run at 180w minimum unless it's like top 5% of all 9900k.

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, Ankerson said:

They will be high binned CPU's like the 8086K's were to the 8700K so they will OC better than the standard ones.

New standard ones, these dies were already in the existing 9900K pool so you're net gaining nothing and lose out on the 9900K pool of dies. The best new 9900KS won't overclock more than the old best 9900K.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

New standard ones, these dies were already in the existing 9900K pool so you're net gaining nothing and lose out on the 9900K pool of dies. The best new 9900KS won't overclock more than the old best 9900K.

That makes the assumption that only now Intel is binning them this strictly. That might not be the case. It's possible that there were some chips that binned higher than exceptional 9900Ks but not enough to push them as their own pool of chips yet.